Re: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion

Hadriel Kaplan <> Tue, 18 October 2011 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B40921F8B6F for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.489
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RH+O6pXXqHl7 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551B621F8B56 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:34:48 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:34:48 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion
Thread-Index: AQHMjZq01pQrrm9gDkqkt90EPmbj/A==
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:34:48 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:34:51 -0000

On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> We also have a third proposal that want to be included in the
> considerations:
> c) RTCWEB does not define any signaling behavior at all, instead W3C is
> tasked to develop an API that allows the application to establish the
> media session between peers.
> I have as WG chair requested that the proponents for C to produce a
> Internet draft that provides requirements on the API and its capability.
> This is to ensure that this proposal can be properly evaluated. So far
> no such contribution has occurred. Without a willingness from the
> proponents of this style of solution to contribute and evolve their
> thinking in such way that the other WG members can gain a better
> understanding of the implications of this solution I find it difficult
> for us include it in the up coming consensus call.

That was not my understanding of what you (the WG Chairs) were asking for.  The email from Ted asking for drafts was this:

My reading of that is it was asking for a concrete solution in the signaling solutions discussion.  For those of us who feel there needs to be *no* standard-defined signaling, it was asking us for the empty set.  We delivered.  :)

Now it sounds like you're asking for something different: requirements for the (W3C-defined) API.  I had assumed that's what draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements was supposed to cover. No?